Ex Parte La Prade

Background

Arthur T. La Prade became Arizona’s attorney general after his predecessor, K. Berry Peterson, left office. Two major railroads had sued the then-attorney general to stop enforcement of an Arizona law limiting train car length, claiming federal constitutional and statutory violations. The district court refused to dismiss the suits, appointed a master, and, after Peterson left office, allowed the railroads to substitute La Prade as the defendant under a federal statute (28 U.S.C. §780). La Prade objected and sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court to prevent his forced substitution.

Reasoning

The Court examined the federal statute that permits courts to continue actions against successors in office. It explained that the law is permissive and that, as presented, it did not authorize making La Prade a defendant when he had not threatened to enforce the Arizona statute. The Court relied on prior decisions holding that suits aimed at stopping a wrongful act by a specific official are personal to that official and ordinarily end when he leaves office. Because plaintiffs did not allege La Prade was proceeding or threatening to enforce the law, the district court had no jurisdiction to substitute him, and the Court reserved the question whether substitution could ever be allowed when a successor clearly adopts the predecessor’s enforcement posture.

Real world impact

The Supreme Court granted La Prade’s request, ordered the lower court to vacate its decrees against him, and commanded dismissal of the suits as to the new attorney general. The ruling protects a successor official from being automatically forced into pending personal litigation unless the successor is shown to be continuing the challenged enforcement conduct.